Lexicons and grammars for language processing: industrial or handcrafted products?

Eric Laporte

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2606.03412

Lexicons and grammars for language processing: industrial or handcrafted products?

Eric Laporte

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

During the recent years, the use of linguistic data for language processing increased progressively. Such data are now commonly called language resources. Most of the language resources used for this purpose are collections of texts as the Brown Corpus and the Penn Treebank, but electronic lexicons (WordNet, FrameNet, VerbNet, ComLex, Lexicon-Grammar...) and formal grammars (TAG...) developed recently. Most processes of construction of lexicons and grammars are manual, whereas the construction of corpora has always been highly automated. However, more and more specialists of language processing realize that the information content of lexicons and grammars is richer than that of corpora, and hence the former make more elaborate processing possible. The difference in construction time is likely to be connected with the difference in information content: the handcrafting of lexicons and grammars by linguists would make them more informative than automatically generated data. This situation can evolve into two directions: either specialists of language technology get progressively used to handling manually constructed resources, which are more informative and more complex, or the process of construction of lexicons and grammars is automated and industrialized, which is the mainstream perspective. Both evolutions are already in progress, and a tension exists between them. The relation between linguists and computer scientists depends on the future of these evolutions, since the first implies training and hiring numerous linguists, whereas the other depends essentially on solutions elaborated by computer engineers. The aim of this article is to analyse practical examples of the language resources in question, and to discuss about which of the two trends, handcrafting or generating industrially, or a combination of both, can give the best results or is the most realistic.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Eric Laporte. 2026-06-02. Lexicons and grammars for language processing: industrial or handcrafted products?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03412

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL↗